Summer Transfer Window 2025 Thread

[Drico]

So in your scenario it would be bad luck too to get injuries to Tarks/Branthwaite/JOB. It's not bad planning either. It's sensible. Sign Keane for a year deal to be a if the absolute worst happens choice while we address positions in the squad first that we don't have an out and out first team quality player in. CB is very low down on the list of positions to fix and despite us having money this summer due to the new ownership, we don't have an unlimited budget.

Nope. In my "scenario", injuries can be expected to Tarkowski or Branthwaite. So, we plan for injuries. If we sign somebody without a history of regular injuries - and they then get injured, that's really bad luck. If, however, we plan for the same injuries and have Michael Keane as back-up, well, that's simply terribly bad planning and creating a hostage to fortune.

This is not difficult.

 

[ToffeeScot]

Weird that that's the bit you focused on, but OK. Do you also accept that a fourth choice CB is more likely to play than a fourth choice striker or goalkeeper? Or are the semantics the most important thing?

If the first team lineup reads Tarkwoski and Branthwaite in the middle and O’Brien at RB, and we get an injury at CB, who comes off the bench? Keane.

So call it whatever you want, but people implying that he’s not going be playing much because he’s 4th choice are completely incorrect. He will be playing, often, and he’s nowhere near good enough to be playing PL football. This is not rocket science.

It's quite likely that we sign an RB given our interest in Tete, and despite their injuries, Patterson and Coleman are also still at the club.

This whole argument is based on hypotheticals. Domingo started the nonsense about 4th choice because they just don't like Keane, that's fine. If you don't want to use 4th choice then don't, use your own terminology but the fact of it remains that they're not being signed with the intention of playing many minutes and our squad is in need of greater maintenance than to sign a player in a position we don't particularly need to address as a priority. If we have unlimited funds then go for it, but we don't.

RB, LB, CM, ST and RW all need upgrading in terms of the first team prior to upgrading our backups.

 

[ToffeeScot]

Nope. In my "scenario", injuries can be expected to Tarkowski or Branthwaite. So, we plan for injuries. If we sign somebody without a history of regular injuries - and they then get injured, that's really bad luck. If, however, we plan for the same injuries and have Michael Keane as back-up, well, that's simply terribly bad planning and creating a hostage to fortune.

This is not difficult.

Not really buying the expected injury argument for Tarkowski when this is the first injury he's had with us and the first since the 20/21 season.

 

[Drico]

Not really buying the expected injury argument for Tarkowski when this is the first injury he's had with us and the first since the 20/21 season.

Well, I'm not really buying your contrarian nonsense, either.

 

[Saint Domingo]

Quite simply Keane isn’t good enough to be on the pitch for Everton for any amount of time. Wrap whatever semantics you want around that.

 

[pfim]

If the first team lineup reads Tarkwoski and Branthwaite in the middle and O’Brien at RB, and we get an injury at CB, who comes off the bench? Keane.

So call it whatever you want, but people implying that he’s not going be playing much because he’s 4th choice are completely incorrect. He will be playing, often, and he’s nowhere near good enough to be playing PL football. This is not rocket science.

If O'Brien is at RB, we have bigger problems than Michael Keane.

 

[MikeH72]

4th choice is what Chermiti was last season for one striking position. DCL Beto Broja Chermiti. So you only play if the first three players aren’t available.

He’d be 4th choice if there were was one CB position in the team. There isn’t there’s two. So if we have an injury in the RCB position OBrien steps in, if we have one more injury then Keane is in the first team. That’s not being 4th choice.

So he gets in the team if 2 of the 3 other centre backs get injured? So he literally is 4th choice then

 

[AdamMcG2000]

Quite simply Keane isn’t good enough to be on the pitch for Everton for any amount of time. Wrap whatever semantics you want around that.

Who do you suggest we replace him with?

 

[willo30]

It's fairly straightforward. If we have four centre forwards but only play one, three forwards would have to be injured or suspended to play our fourth choice CF. However, because we play two centre halves, only two of them would have to be unavailable for us to have to play our fourth choice CB. They're both technically fourth choice, but the CB is far more likely to play.

TL : DR - Don't re-sign Keane as it's very likely he'll play and he's rubbish.

What position do we sacrifice in terms of quality to sign better than Michael Keane who may not play?

It's obvious that we are still counting the pennies with the need to re-sign players for cover.

 

[Saint Domingo]

Who do you suggest we replace him with?

Esteve from Burnley would be my preference. Good player.

 

[Lanolin]

I for one am furious that we won't be spending £50m on somebody who would be next in line after the 3rd choice centre half and immediately before the 5th choice centre half but definitely not be 4th choice centre half.

 

[Saint Domingo]

So he gets in the team if 2 of the 3 other centre backs get injured? So he literally is 4th choice then

I’m not shocked at all you don’t understand.

 

[willo30]

Esteve from Burnley would be my preference. Good player.

But he would cost money.

 

[MikeH72]

I’m not shocked at all you don’t understand.

No I don’t understand your nonsensical ramblings, correct.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Quite simply Keane isn’t good enough to be on the pitch for Everton for any amount of time. Wrap whatever semantics you want around that.

Not entirely true - he quietly goes about 60% (or whatever) of his games without issue - it is the others that every one remembers